Crisis Communications: When Silence Is Your Choice, You Should Still Be Prepared

June 14, 2012

Crisis Communications: When Silence Is Your Choice, You Should Still Be Prepared

By Michael Fineman, President, Fineman PR

In our crisis communications practice, our recommendations and our clients' responses run the gamut — from telling the story first before someone else tells it with an unwanted twist, to responding to false charges with credible information, to a wait-and-see approach. Each situation is different depending on its seriousness, its stage of evolution, its potential for reversal, and its legal ramifications, among other factors.

With the threat the Internet and social media pose for broadcasting bad news, our public relations counsel often errs on the side of positioning our clients as forthright and ready to tell their side of the story. That counsel notwithstanding, there are still plenty of decision makers who decide to take the approach of "Wait it out; say as little as possible and keep a low profile," typically guided by the assumptions that people have shorter attention spans, that today's news media are covering less due to diminished resources and/or that anything said will make the organization a more visible target. The hope is that the crisis will go away soon enough on its own with nary a notice, so nary a word need be said.

And, guess what? Sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's the right guess.

Let's say, though, that the situation doesn't go away, that your organization's bad news begins capturing a critical mass of attention among significant markets. How much of your organization's — and your own — personal reputation are you willing to risk without being prepared for a worse (or worst case) scenario?

In these situations, here's the minimum organizations should have in place to be prepared:

A worst case scenario plan — articulating the issue's implications, how the crisis could occur, what to say and how to say it if it does occur, who needs to know and in what format
A just-in-case, brief foundational statement so that a "no comment" is not provided for possible media inquiries and which can serve later, potentially, as the basis for evolving developments
Key messages and/or talking points for any potential audience that may need a response
Monitoring of all traditional and social media channels (including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube) for awareness of new wrinkles, to gauge momentum of the issue, to identify messaging opportunities, and to assess impact
Key word listings for monitoring and for those searching for the organization's point-of-view
Selection and preparation of spokesperson (for worst case or near-worst case scenario)
Access to and coordination with legal counsel for any potential communications or anticipated developments
Updated or creation of a Media Policy and Social Media Policy, both related to guiding employees' individual communications about the organization or on the organization's behalf

My experience tells me that for any number of reasons, clients and their attorneys may need to orient their communications closer to the vest than communications counsel ordinarily prefer. Even so, there is still room – and it makes good sense — to be, at the very least, minimally prepared in the event of volatile and unexpected developments.

Comments

Waiting it out has 100% risk

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on June 17, 2012 - 8:58am.

The underlying problems with the approach outlined are that once you embark on a "be quiet, wait and see" pathway -- IF it does get bad, as noted, and you then have to start saying something, your silence is a major liability. "For days Apple said nothing and FINALLY responded . . . ." comes to mind. As long as you are silent, the assumptions are 1) Something to hide OR trying to hide things now before they speak; 2) Guilty and afraid to speak; 3) Don't know what's going on -- can't manage their own company (stockholders love that one); 4) Don't care about what public thinks, too arrogant to respond; 5) All of the above.

IF there is a likelihood that more negative facts will leak out (look at Penn State this week -- FINALLY the smoking gun that the president and others knew, and delilberately chose to do nothing, so seven more years of abuse occurred), then your silence becomes a major liability. "They only told the truth when they were exposed."

And indicating in the plan that there are some audiences who may "need a response" seems to suggest that you could be publicly silent, but tell some people some things, apparently privately.

Except that never works. The moment one person outside of the crisis team is briefed, the chances that the news will leak out is nearly 100%. "I didn't tell that reporter; I just told my WIFE," said one hapless exec. Yup, and she just told her sister, who mentioned it to a neighbor . . . . haircutter . . . . . cousin of the news anchor for Channel 4.

Staying resolutely silent when there has been wrongdoing of any sort, inadvertently or deliberate, is a route to reputation destruction. Susan G.Komen Foundation -- had they told the flat out truth on day one and said to supporters "We made a horrible mistake, here's what we did, here's how we're fixing it and please help us survive," think where they might be now. Instead, they stonewalled, lied ("no political issues at all") and only on Day Three did they sort of admit some mistakes and say "well OK, we'll change our policy."

Now they are losing senior staff, affiliate staff, donors large and small, and all of their past sins of abusing people who dared to use a pink ribbon or the word "walk" are bubbling up to add t the picture of a very nasty charitable organization. They are losing money and worse, the credible position that is essential to a charity, and even worse, the emotional connection to their donors, so many of whom also hold Planned Parenthood dear to their hearts.

I'm sure they thought they could "wait it out" and they tried. By the time they spoke up with truth, the damage was done.